I'm beginning an objective-c project. I have a question regarding immutability. Is it worth trying to make objects immutable whenever I can? If I update a field, I have to return a pointer to a new object and dealloc the old. If I do this often, there might be performance issues. Also, the code will probably be more verbose. There are undoubtedly other considerations. What do you think?
Edit: Let me clarify what I mean when I write "update a field". Normally, when you update a field you call a setter and just change the value of the field. If the object is immutable, the setter does not actually update the field, instead it creates a new instance, with all the fields having the same value, except for the field you are trying to update. In java:
class User{
private String firstName;
private String lastName;
public User(String fn, String ln){ firstName = fn; lastName = ln; }
public User setFirstName(String fn){ return new User(fn, lastName); }
}
Use immutable objects whenever possible, due to the performance overhead of mutable objects.
Edit: Well, usually the above should be true, but it seems there are situations where NSMutableArray performance is actually better then NSArray. Read some more about it on the Cocos2d site:
Read some more about mutability on CocoaWithLove (great weblog for Mac / iOS developers so put it in your favorites!).
I'd also like to add that a lot of objects have the -mutableCopy instance method, this is an easy to use method to retrieve a mutable copy from an immutable objects, like a NSArray or NSString, e.g.:
NSArray *array = [NSArray arrayWithObjects:#"apple", #"pear", #"lemon"];
NSMutableArray *mutableArray = [array mutableCopy];
// remember to release the mutableArray at some point
// because we've created a copy ...
Just remember in some situations a mutable object is easier to use, for example for a UITableView that makes use of a datasource that is subject to a lot of changes over time.
Whether mutable or immutable objects are best is very situation dependent, so it's best if you give a more concrete example to discuss. But here are some things to think about.
Often object properties are somehow inter-related. For instance, a Person might have a givenName and surname, but might also have a fullName that combines those two, and it might have a nameOrder that indicates which comes first. If you make Person mutable, then there can be points in time that fullName might be incorrect because you have changed the surname but not the givenName (perhaps one of them is still nil). You now need a more complex interface to protect you against this.
If other objects use this mutable Person, they have to employ KVO or notifications to find out when it has changed. The fact that interrelated fields might change independently can make this complex, and you find yourself writing code to coalesce the changes.
If some combinations of properties are illegal, mutable objects can be very hard to error check. An immutable object can do all of its checking when it is constructed.
There are some middle-grounds between mutable and immutable. In the above example of Person and various name properties, one way to simplify much of it is to let Person be mutable, but create a separate immutable Name object that contains the various parts. That way you can make sure that the entire name is mutated in an atomic way.
Immutable objects greatly simplify multi-threaded code. Mutable objects require a lot more locking and synchronization, and this can significantly hurt performance and stability. It's very easy to screw this code up. Immutable objects in comparison are trivial.
To your point about creating and throwing away objects, immutable objects also give the opportunity for sharing, which can make them very efficient if there are likely to be many objects pointing to the same data contents. For instance, in our Person example, if I make an immutable Address object, then every person who lives at the same address can share the same object. If one changes their address, this doesn't impact all the others.
As an example of the above, my code has a lot of email addresses in it. It's extremely common for the same string to show up over and over again. Making EmailAddress immutable, and only allowing it to be constructed with +emailAddressForString: allows the class to maintain a cache and this can save significant memory and time to construct and destroy string objects. But this only works because EmailAddress is immutable.
Anyway, my experience is that it's often better to err towards immutable data objects for simplicity, and only make the mutable when immutability creates a performance problem. (Of course this only applies to data objects. Stateful objects are a different thing, and of course need to be mutable by their nature, but that doesn't mean that every part of them must be mutable.)
As in any other imperative language: it depends. I've seen decent boosts in code performance when we use immutable objects, but they're also usually infrequently-modified objects, ones which are read out of an archive or set by a user and then passed around to all different bits of code. It doesn't seem worth doing this for all your code, at least not to me, unless you plan on heavily leveraging multiprocessing and understand the tradeoffs you're making.
I think the bigger immutability concern is that if you've done good design to keep your data marked immutable when it is such, and mutable when it is such, then it's going to be a lot easier to take advantage of things like Grand Central Dispatch and other parallelization where you could realize far greater potential gains.
As a side note, moving to Objective C from Java, the first tip I can give you is to ditch the notion of public and private.
Related
I often use simple non compile-time immutable objects: like an array #[#"a", #"b"] or a dictionary #{#"a": #"b"}.
I struggle between reallocating them all the time:
- (void)doSomeStuff {
NSArray<NSString *> *fileTypes = #[#"h", #"m"];
// use fileTypes
}
And allocating them once:
- (void)doSomeStuff {
static NSArray<NSString *> * fileTypes;
static dispatch_once_t onceToken;
dispatch_once(&onceToken, ^{
fileTypes = #[#"h", #"m"];
});
// use fileTypes
}
Are there recommendations on when to use each construct? Like:
depending on the size of the allocated object
depending on the frequency of the allocation
depending on the device (iPhone 4 vs iMac 2016)
...
How do I figure it out?
Your bullet list is a good start. Memory would be another consideration. A static variable will stay in memory from the time it is actually initialized until the termination of the app. Obviously a local variable will be deallocated at the end of the method (assuming no further references).
Readability is something to consider too. The reallocation line is much easier to read than the dispatch_once setup.
For a little array, I'd reallocate as the first choice. The overhead is tiny. Unless you are creating the array in a tight loop, performance will be negligible.
I would use dispatch_once and a static variable for things that take more overhead such as creating a date formatter. But then there is the overhead of reacting to the user changing the device's locale.
In the end, my thought process is to first use reallocation. Then I consider whether there is tangible benefit to using static and dispatch_once. If there isn't a worthwhile reason to use a static, I leave it a local variable.
Use static if the overhead (speed) of reallocation is too much (but not if the permanent memory hit is too large).
Your second approach is more complex. So you should use it, if it is needed, but not as a default.
Typically this is done when the object creating is extreme expensive (almost never) or if you need a single identity of the instance object (shared instance, sometimes called singleton, what is incorrect.) In such a case you will recognize that you need it.
Although this question could probably be closed as "primarily opinion-based", I think this question addresses a choice that programmers frequently make.
The obvious answer is: don't optimize, and if you do, profile first - because most of the time you'll intuitively address the wrong part of your code.
That being said, here's how I address this.
If the needed object is expensive to build (like the formatters per documentation) and lightweight on resources, reuse / cache the object.
If the object is cheap to build, create a new instance when needed.
For crucial things that run on the main thread (UI stuff) I tend to draw the line more strict and cache earlier.
Depending on what you need those objects for, sometimes there are valid alternatives that are cheaper but offer a similar programming comfort. For example, if you wanted to look up some chessboard coordinates, you could either build a dictionary {#"a1" : 0, #"b1" : 1, ...}, use an array alone and the indices, take a plain C array (which now has a much less price tag attached to it), or do a small integer-based calculation.
Another point to consider is where to put the cached object. For example, you could store it statically in the method as in your example. Or you could make it an instance variable. Or a class property / static variable. Sometimes caching is only the half way to the goal - if you consider a table view with cells including a date formatter, you can think about reusing the very same formatter for all your cells. Sometimes you can refactor that reused object into a helper object (be it a singleton or not), and address some issues there.
So there is really no golden bullet here, and each situation needs an individual approach. Just don't fall into the trap of premature optimization and trade clear code for bug-inviting, hardly readable stuff that might not matter to your performance but comes with sure drawbacks like increased memory footprint.
dispatch_once_t
This allows two major benefits: 1) a method is guaranteed to be called only once, during the lifetime of an application run, and 2) it can be used to implement lazy initialization, as reported in the Man Page below.
From the OS X Man Page for dispatch_once():
The dispatch_once() function provides a simple and efficient mechanism to run an initializer exactly once, similar to pthread_once(3). Well designed code hides the use of lazy initialization.
Some use cases for dispatch_once_t
Singleton
Initialization of a file system resource, such as a file handle
Any static variable that would be shared by a group of instances, and takes up a lot of memory
static, without dispatch_once_t
A statically declared variable that is not wrapped in a dispatch_once block still has the benefit of being shared by many instances. For example, if you have a static variable called defaultColor, all instances of the object see the same value. It is therefore class-specific, instead of instance-specific.
However, any time you need a guarantee that a block will be called only once, you will need to use dispatch_once_t.
Immutability
You also mentioned immutability. Immutability is independent of the concern of running something once and only once--so there are cases for both static immutable variables and instance immutable variables. For instance, there may be times when you need to have an immutable object initialized, but it still may be different for each instance (in cases where it's value depends on other instance variables). In that case, an immutable object is not static, and still may be initialized with different values from multiple instances. In this case, a property is derived from other instance variables, and therefore should not be allowed to be changed externally.
A note on immutability vs mutability, from Concepts in Objective-C Programming:
Consider a scenario where all objects are capable of being mutated. In your application you invoke a method and are handed back a reference to an object representing a string. You use this string in your user interface to identify a particular piece of data. Now another subsystem in your application gets its own reference to that same string and decides to mutate it. Suddenly your label has changed out from under you. Things can become even more dire if, for instance, you get a reference to an array that you use to populate a table view. The user selects a row corresponding to an object in the array that has been removed by some code elsewhere in the program, and problems ensue. Immutability is a guarantee that an object won’t unexpectedly change in value while you’re using it.
Objects that are good candidates for immutability are ones that encapsulate collections of discrete values or contain values that are stored in buffers (which are themselves kinds of collections, either of characters or bytes). But not all such value objects necessarily benefit from having mutable versions. Objects that contain a single simple value, such as instances of NSNumber or NSDate, are not good candidates for mutability. When the represented value changes in these cases, it makes more sense to replace the old instance with a new instance.
A note on performance, from the same reference:
Performance is also a reason for immutable versions of objects representing things such as strings and dictionaries. Mutable objects for basic entities such as strings and dictionaries bring some overhead with them. Because they must dynamically manage a changeable backing store—allocating and deallocating chunks of memory as needed—mutable objects can be less efficient than their immutable counterparts.
In Objc string, array and dictionary are all reference types, while in Swift they are all value types.
I want to figure out what's the reason behind the scenes, for my understanding, no matter it is a reference type or value type, the objects live in the heap in both Objc and Swift.
Was the change for making coding easier? i.e. if it is reference type then the pointer to the object might not be nil, so need to check both pointer and the object not nil for accessing the object. While if it is value type then only need to check the object itself?
But in terms of memory allocation, value types and reference types are same, right? both allocated same size of memory?
thanks
Arrays, dictionaries etc. in Objective-C are often mutable. That means when I pass an array to another method, and then that array is modified behind the back of the other method, surprising (to put it gently) behaviour will happen.
By making arrays, dictionaries etc. value types, this surprising behaviour is avoided. When you receive a Swift array, you know that nobody is going to modify it behind your back. Objects that can be modified behind your back are a major source for problems.
In reality, the Swift compiler tries to avoid unnecessary copying whenever possible. So even if it says that an array is officially copied, it doesn't mean that it is really copied.
The Swift team is very active on the official developer forums. So, I'm assuming that since you didn't ask there, you're more curious about the community's broader "sense" of what the change means, as opposed to the technical implementation details. If you want to understand exactly "why", just go ask them :)
The explanation that makes the most sense to me is that Objects should be responsible for reacting to, and updating the state of your application. Values should be the state of your application. In other words, an Array or a String or a Dictionary (and other value types) should never be responsible for responding to user input or network input or error conditions, etc. The Objects handle that and store the resulting data into those values.
One cool feature in Swift, which makes a complex Value Type (like a Dictionary or a custom type like Person, as opposed to a simple Float) more viable, is that the value types can encapsulate rules and logic because they can have functions. If I write a value type Person as a struct, then the Person struct can have a function for updating a name due to marriage, etc. That's solely concerned with the data, and not with /managing/ the state. The Objects will still decide WHEN and WHY to updating a Person's name, but the business logic of how to go about doing so safely/test-ably can be included in the Value Type itself. Hence giving you a nice way to increase isolation and reduce complexity.
In addition to the previous answers, there are also multi-threading issues to consider with sharing a Reference-Based collection type that we don't have to worry as much with sharing an instance of a type that is Value-Based and has Copy-On-Write behavior. Multi-core is becoming more and more proliferant even on iOS devices, so it has become more of an issue for the Swift language developers to consider.
I do not know, whether this is the real idea behind it, but have a historical view on it:
At the beginning, an array copy behaved by reference, when you changed an item in it. It behaved by value, when you changed the length of the array. They did it for performance reasons (less array copy). But of course this was, eh, how can I express that politly, eh, difficult with Swift at all, eh, let's call it a "do not care about a good structure if you can win some performance, you probably never need" approach. Some called that copy-on-write, what is not much more intelligent, because COW is transparent, while that behavior was not transparent. Typical Swift wording: Use a buzzword, use it the way, it fits to Swift, don't care about correctness.
Later on arrays got a complete by copy behavior, what is less confusing. (You remember, Swift was for readability. Obviously in Swift's concept, readability means "less characters to read", but does not mean "better understandable". Typical Swift wording: Use a buzzword, use it the way, it fits to Swift, don't care about correctness. Did I already mention that?)
So, I guess it is still performance plus understandable behavior probably leading to less performance. (You will better know when a copy is needed in your code and you can still do that and you get a 0-operation from Cocoa, if the source array is immutable.) Of course, they could say: "Okay, by value was a mistake, we changed that." But they will never say.
However, now arrays in Swift behave consistently. A big progress in Swift! Maybe you can call it a programming language one sunny day.
Suppose I’m making an Objective-C class that represents a fraction, and want to create immutable and mutable versions.
Following the patterns in the Foundation framework, you might expect to see the method fractionByAddingFraction: in the immutable version and addFraction: in the mutable version.
The paradox I’m running into is how to only include the fraction-adding logic once between the two classes. It seems that the immutable fractionByAddingFraction: method needs to know about (and make use of) the mutable addFraction: method in order to avoid code duplication, and yet including the mutable methods in the implementation of the immutable class means they could conceivably be called on the immutable object, which defeats the point.
A brief explanation (or better still, a continuation of this simplified example) would be much appreciated!
Your approach is correct (if you really need a mutable subclass, which you should avoid unless you actually need it). I'm not quite clear where the confusion is coming in. You would most easily implement addFraction: using fractionByAddingFraction:. It would be a little inefficient, but that's the direction that would make the most sense. Something like:
- (void)addFraction:(Fraction *)anotherFraction {
Fraction *newFraction = [self fractionByAddingFraction:anotherFraction];
self.internalStuff = newFraction.internalStuff;
}
But typically you would probably handle this more efficiently with some private _GetInternalStuffByAddingInternalStuffs() function that both classes would use.
The primary implementations of Foundation’s collections cheat: there’s only one implementation, which is a subclass of NSMutableFoo, and it has a private mutability flag. This means client code can’t test whether a particular object is mutable or not, but that would never be a good idea anyway except perhaps for debugging and assertions.
I have a number of functions similar to the following:
+ (NSArray *)arrayOfSomething
{
NSMutableArray *array = [NSMutableArray array];
// Add objects to the array
return [[array copy] autorelease];
}
My question is about the last line of this method: is it better to return the mutable object and avoid a copy operation, or to return an immutable copy? Are there any good reasons to avoid returning a mutable object where one is not expected?
(I know that it is legal to return a NSMutableArray since it is a subclass of NSArray. My question is whether or not this is a good idea.)
This is a complex topic. I think it's best to refer you to Apple's guidelines on object mutability.
Apple has this to say on the subject of using introspection to determine a returned object's mutability:
To determine whether it can change a received object, the receiver must rely on the formal type of the return value. If it receives, for instance, an array object typed as immutable, it should not attempt to mutate it. It is not an acceptable programming practice to determine if an object is mutable based on its class membership
(my emphasis)
The article goes on to give several very good reasons why you should not use introspection on a returned object to determine if you can mutate it e.g.
You read a property list from a file. When the Foundation framework processes the list it notices that various subsets of the property list are identical, so it creates a set of objects that it shares among all those subsets. Afterwards you look at the created property list objects and decide to mutate one subset. Suddenly, and without being aware of it, you’ve changed the tree in multiple places.
and
You ask NSView for its subviews (subviews method) and it returns an object that is declared to be an NSArray but which could be an NSMutableArray internally. Then you pass that array to some other code that, through introspection, determines it to be mutable and changes it. By changing this array, the code is mutating NSView’s internal data structures.
Given the above, it is perfectly acceptable for you to return the mutable array in your example (provided of course, you never mutate it yourself after having returned it, because then you would be breaking the contract).
Having said that, almost nobody has read that section of the Cocoa Objects Guide, so defensive programming would call for you to make an immutable copy and return that unless performance profiling shows that it is a problem to do that.
Short Answer: Don't do it
Long Answer: It depends. If the array is getting changed while being used by someone who expects it be static, you can cause some baffling errors that would be a pain to track down. It would be better to just do the copy/autorelease like you've done and only come back and revisit the return type of that method if it turns out that there is a significant performance hit.
In response to the comments, I think it's unlikely that returning a mutable array would cause any trouble, but, if it does cause trouble, it could be difficult to track down exactly what the issue is. If making a copy of the mutable array turns out to be a big performance hit, it will be very easy to determine what's causing the problem. You have a choice between two very unlikely issues, one that's easy to solve, one that's very difficult.
I'm starting to code in objective-c and I've just realized that objects can only be passed by reference.
What if I need an object to use static memory by default and to be copied instead of referenced?
For example, I have an object Color with 3 int components r, g and b. I dont want these objects to be in dynamic memory and referenced when passing to functions, I want them immutable and to be copied like an int or a float.
I know I can use a c struct, but I also need the object Color to have methods that gets/sets lightness, hue, saturation, etc. I want my code to be object oriented.
Is there any solution to this?
EDIT: If for example I'm building a 3d game engine, where I'll have classes like Vector2, Vector3, Matrix, Ray, Color, etc: 1) I need them to be mutable. 2) The size of the objects is roughly the same size of a pointer, so why would I be copying pointers when I can copy the object? It would be simpler, more efficient, and I wouldnt need to manage memory, specially on methods that returns colors. And In the case of a game engine, efficiency is critical.
So, if there is no solution to this... Should I use c-structs and use c-function to work on them? Isn't there a better choice?
Thanks.
You can't do this. This isn't how Objective-C works (at least the Apple/GNU version*). It simply isn't designed for that sort of extreme low-level efficiency. Objects are allocated in dynamic memory and their lifetimes are controlled by methods you call on them, and that's just how it works. If you want more low-level efficiency, you can either use plain C structs or C++. But keep in mind that worrying about this is pointless in 99% of circumstances — the epitome of premature optimization. Objective-C programs are generally very competitive with C++ equivalents both in execution speed and memory use despite this minor inefficiency. I wouldn't go for a more difficult solution until profiling had proved it to be necessary.
Also, when you're new to Objective-C, it's easy to psych yourself out over memory management. In a normal Cocoa (Touch) program, you shouldn't need to bother about it too much. Return autoreleased objects from methods, use setters to assign objects you want to keep around.
*Note: There was an old implementation of Objective-C called the Portable Object Compiler that did have this ability, but it's unrelated to and incompatible with the Objective-C used on Macs and iOS devices. Also, the Apple Objective-C runtime includes special support for Blocks to be allocated on the stack, which is why you must copy them (copy reproduces the block in dynamic memory like a normal object) if you want to store them.
What if I need an object to use static memory by default and to be copied instead of referenced?
You don't.
Seriously. You never need an object to use static memory or be allocated on the stack. C++ allows you to do it, but no other object oriented language I know does.
For example, I have an object Color with 3 int components r, g and b. I dont want these objects to be in dynamic memory and referenced when passing to functions, I want them immutable and to be copied like an int or a float.
Why do you not want the objects to be in static memory? What advantage do you think that gives you?
On the other hand it's easy to make Objective-C objects immutable. Just make the instance variables private and don't provide any methods that can change them once the object is initialised. This is exactly how the built in immutable classes work e.g. NSArray, NSString.
One solution that people use sometimes is to use a singleton object (assuming you only need one of the objects for your entire app's lifetime). In that case, you define a class method on the class and have it return an object that it creates once when it is first requested. So you can do something like:
#implementation MyObject
+ (MyObject *)sharedObjectInstance
{
static MyObject *theObject=nil;
if (theObject==nil)
{
theObject = [[MyObject alloc] init];
}
return theObject;
}
#end
Of course the object itself isn't what's being statically allocated, it's the pointer to the object that's statically allocated, but in any case the object will stick around until the application terminates.
There are times when you want to do this because you really only want one globally shared instance of a particular object. However, if that's not your objective, I'm not sure why you'd want to do what you're describing. You can always use the -copy method to create a copy of an object (assuming the object conforms to the NSCopying protocol) to manipulate without touching the original.
EDIT: Based on your comments above it seems you just want to have immutable objects that you can copy and modify the copies. So using -copy is probably the way to go.